No Deal

[FunkyDexter]

I've never actually watched Battle Royale. It's been on my bucket list for ages but just never quite made it to the screen.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I've never actually watched Battle Royale.

What have you been doing with your life FD, stop what your doing right now go watch it and report back

Seriously though it is a classic film, and the likes of Fortnight & PubG basically wouldn't exist without this film

[Shaggy Hiker]

You folks make some compelling arguments. It certainly appears that Brexit will have one lasting impact: The parties are going to tear down and rebuild. What will end up looks like an EU party and an anti-EU party, with all other issues being secondary to that primary division. Labor and Lib Dems will be different flavors of one side, while Tory and the Farage Fruitcake party will be different flavors of the other side. After all, no matter how this resolves (leave, remain...or permanent dysfunction), the fight will not be over. If you leave, the fight will be over the dissolution of the empire and who (and how) to trade with. If you stay, it will be a different kind of fight, kind of like the current Scottish separation, where the fight is never really over.

[FunkyDexter]

I think when I first heard of it my mates were raving but I thought the premise sounded silly so I wasn't interested. The Hunger Games, while not exactly rocking my world, did convince me that the premise stands up. So, now I really ought to watch it to see if my mates were right.

I think the fact that it's sub-titled is another barrier because I'm a bit lazy when I watch films. I'm really going to upset folks when I say that I preferred the American version of the Ring for this reason (seriously, the creepy scenes with flies, ladders etc are identical, and that's really what the film is about). If there's one think likely to cause a bigger row than Brexit, it's that assertion

[FunkyDexter]

You folks make some compelling arguments...

Go on and spoil it by getting things back on topic

I think your assessment of the future shape of the political parties is broadly correct but perhaps a little over simplified where Labour is concerned. The Tories certainly look like they're going to turn more and more into a single issue Brexit Party. The LibDems, Greens, SNP and Plaid are all cohesive as Remain already so they'll just continue much as they are - they won't become single issue parties as such.

But Labour, that could get really interesting. It might not be obvious to an outside observer (or it might) but Labour are every bit as divided over Europe as the Tories are. That's why Corbyn refused to take a position for so long. He still hasn't really and the only position the labour party have really taken is "we think there should be a general election"... which isn't actually a position on Brexit at all. If Labour were in government and trying to push some sort of resolution through you'd be seeing them melt down just as dramatically as the Tories are. Don't make the mistake of thinking Labour are a remain party, they're not.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I think when I first heard of it my mates were raving but I thought the premise sounded silly so I wasn't interested. The Hunger Games, while not exactly rocking my world, did convince me that the premise stands up. So, now I really ought to watch it to see if my mates were right.

The premise does sound a bit silly, but actually when you watch it kind of seems sort of believable in Japan. Also it is a far better film than the Hunger games and far more violent. There is enough action in it that you can deal with the subtitles, it not like one of the foreign language films that is overly heavy on dialog.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

farage fruitcake party

best description of Brexit party anyone has ever come up with

[NeedSomeAnswers]

But Labour, that could get really interesting. It might not be obvious to an outside observer (or it might) but Labour are every bit as divided over Europe as the Tories are. That's why Corbyn refused to take a position for so long. He still hasn't really and the only position the labour party have really taken is "we think there should be a general election"... which isn't actually a position on Brexit at all. If Labour were in government and trying to push some sort of resolution through you'd be seeing them melt down just as dramatically as the Tories are. Don't make the mistake of thinking Labour are a remain party, they're not.

Oh its pretty obvious that they are divided otherwise they wouldn't have had a policy to sit firmly on the fence for the last 6 months

What they have agreed at the PLP though is if they get in power is to try and do a better Brexit deal and then put that to a referendum. Whether they campaign for remain or their deal in that situation is in doubt, but i have no doubt that that policy will be backed by the MP's if that is what is in there Manifesto.

People want a resolution and i believe that they are going to get a much more binary choice in this next election

[FunkyDexter]

What they have agreed at the PLP though is if they get in power is to try and do a better Brexit deal and then put that to a referendum.

Yeah, but we all know that there is no better Brexit deal so that referendum will still be "do you want to do this deal". The answer to which will be no. And that's when the melt down would happen.

[Shaggy Hiker]

but perhaps a little over simplified where Labour is concerned.

Sorry, I'm American. Once we get beyond two parties, we get confused. Whenever we come up with a third party, the whole question revolves around who they are hurting more, rather than their position.

My feeling with Corbyn is that he'd like to be a Leaver, but is head of a party that is majority Remain, though perhaps by a narrow margin. So, he speaks the party line, but his heart isn't in it. He's certainly a mess, though.

[FunkyDexter]

My feeling with Corbyn is that he'd like to be a Leaver, but is head of a party that is majority Remain, though perhaps by a narrow margin. So, he speaks the party line, but his heart isn't in it.

Nail, head, hit. It's not just Corbyn though. A lot of "old school" Labour are anti EU because they see it as a capitalist old boys club. Meanwhile most of the new young members that Corbyn has managed to mobilise are extremely pro-EU because they see the EU as espousing liberal and socialist ideals. "New" labour (who aren't new anymore) that supported Blair also tend to be pro EU.

That dichotomy hasn't really come home to roost for Labour because they're in opposition so can dodge the issue and avoid taking a position. If they manage to win an election

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Yeah, but we all know that there is no better Brexit deal so that referendum will still be "do you want to do this deal". The answer to which will be no. And that's when the melt down would happen.

Oh i agree there is no better deal, but clearly Corbyn's policy is to get a deal which is a full permanent Customs Union, and to pitch that deal against remain, and put it to a referendum. Which ever wins which will be enacted as in this case you wont be voting on an idea but on an outcome.

When we do have an election we will get a choice between that and No Deal from Boris, i could be wrong but that is where i see us heading. That way we have an election that either Boris wins and No Deal wins, or he loses and then it's some form of Customs Union deal or remain.

Boris and his cohorts could still find a way to leave with no deal before then, but if they dont then thats my prediction anyway.

[FunkyDexter]

Corbyn's policy is to get a deal which is a full permanent Customs Union, and to pitch that deal against remain, and put it to a referendum.

That's what will precipitate the labour meltdown. The labour Bexiters will see that as a choice between remaining and remaining. I think you're probably right that the labour party will end up pursuing that policy but only after they go through a similar train-wreck to the one the Tories are going through now.

There is some really weird cognitive dissonance going on in the Labour party right now. All those new bright young things that Corbyn managed to mobilise don't seem to realise that they're ideologically much closer to the likes of Blair than they are to Corbyn. Corbyn managed to mobilise a huge proportion of the youth, who are idealistic but generally fairly moderate, but his original support is from the hard left. He's rode that tiger pretty well but only because he's never taken a position on... anything. As soon as he does he's going to be caught between Scylla and Charybdis.

Boris and his cohorts could still find a way to leave with no deal before then, but if they dont then thats my prediction anyway.

I don't see how they can. The only two routes I can see are that the new law is found unlawful when Boris takes it to the high court. This is possible but unlikely. Parliament taking control of the agenda wasn't challenged last time so is now precedent. Bercow's partisanship has also gone unchallenged so is similarly precedential. And courts don't like overturning parliament. The other path is that Boris just straight up ignores the new law and refuses to go to Europe. Nobody can actually force him to short of dragging him there in chains. At which point he's breaking the law (you could even get a bit hyperbolic and call this treason) but Brexit goes ahead.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I think you're probably right that the labour party will end up pursuing that policy but only after they go through a similar train-wreck to the one the Tories are going through now.

Maybe, but while there are leavers in Labour none of them want a no deal what will likely be the fight there whether the party backs the deal or remain in any referendum.

You only have to look at the Stephen Kinnock's groups attempt to get May's deal resurrected to show that they will back any deal that is secured as long as it means leaving the EU.

I don't see how they can. The only two routes I can see are that the new law is found unlawful when Boris takes it to the high court. This is possible but unlikely. Parliament taking control of the agenda wasn't challenged last time so is now precedent. Bercow's partisanship has also gone unchallenged so is similarly precedential. And courts don't like overturning parliament. The other path is that Boris just straight up ignores the new law and refuses to go to Europe. Nobody can actually force him to short of dragging him there in chains. At which point he's breaking the law (you could even get a bit hyperbolic and call this treason) but Brexit goes ahead.

Yeah its is a weird one he can refuse to go although at that point he is breaking the law and will be taken to the supreme court which could (according to a supreme court judge in the news the other day) make a judgement allowing someone else to go in his place and giving them the power of the PM in this matter to sign an extension.

If they try and break the law in order to not ask for the extension then we are getting in pretty weird territory, and some commentators are saying that Boris might even resign at this point forcing Corbyn to go and ask for the extension. This would though make Corbyn interim PM which i cant imagine any Tory wanting to happen, but the remaining options are narrowing.

[FunkyDexter]

make a judgement allowing someone else to go in his place and giving them the power of the PM

I'm not sure that's at the behest of the British courts... or any British institution for that matter. It's the EU rules that require it to be the PM. Mind you, I think they're likely to allow it.

I can't see Boris resigning, but maybe.

[Shaggy Hiker]

So, I went away for a few days and nothing totally melted. The last I heard, Boris was being belittled by the EU. Anything new since then?

[2kaud]

The Supreme Court is going to rule next week as to whether the Prorogation of Parliament was legal or not (English High Court say yea, the Scottish High Court say nae). The EU is now saying that there could possibly be the beginnings of a potential deal for the October Council summit - based upon having some common food/farming regs across all of Ireland....

[2kaud]

Well this is now going to be interesting - the prorogation of Parliament has been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court!

[FunkyDexter]

Yep. So the Speaker (do we have one at the moment? I'm not sure if Bercow's resignation has actually taken effect and I'm unaware of a replacement being appointed) can now recall parliament if they wish. I think it's a given that they will.

So now what for Boris? He can simply prorogue again, of course, but that's politically HUGELY difficult. It's also kinda irrelevant since parliament already managed to get the legislation through to force him to ask for an extension in the event of a no deal, which was the whole point of the prorogation in the first place. (not the declared point... but yeah).

It's also going to be interesting to see what the court says in it's full judgement. All they've said so far is that the prorogation was unlawful but they haven't specified on what basis. If they say it was just disproportionately lengthy then no biggy. But if they say he lied to the queen... you bring the excrement and I'll bring the fan. That is actually coming dangerously close to the legal definition of treason.

The EU is now saying that there could possibly be the beginnings of a potential deal for the October Council summit - based upon having some common food/farming regs across all of Ireland....

Would it be smug of me to point out that I floated this up thread? Yeah, it would. So I won't do that.

[2kaud]

But if they say he lied to the queen.

Yep they have! Just a point - Parliament can't be recalled as it was now never legally suspended. Parliament is going to be resumed from where it left off at 11:30 UK time tomorrow (25 Sept). As things now stand, there is now no Queens Speech 14 Oct as Parliament has not been prorogued (which it has to be before a Queens Speech and a new parliamentary session). If BJ wants a new session of Parliament with a Queens Speech then he has to try to prorogue Parliament again.....!!!!!!

PS There's now another legal issue. As the 'NoDeal' bill was granted legal status as part of the now-never-happened prorogation process, is it now not legal??

PPS An implication of this, of course, is that Parliament can only be prorogued when Parliament agrees that it can be!

[FunkyDexter]

Yep they have!

Are you sure? I'm watching the BBC's breaking news channel and they're saying this will only be specified in the full ruling which has yet to be passed down. The initial ruling merely specifies it as unlawful. Could be the situations moved on since I last hit refresh though.

Parliament can't be recalled as it was now never legally suspended. Parliament is going to be resumed

Good point. So I guess there's no formal process. Everyone just turns up tomorrow and carries on.

As the 'NoDeal' bill was granted legal status as part of the now-never-happened prorogation process, is it now not legal??

My admittedly uninformed opinion is that it would be legal. I don't think it was technically linked to the prorogation at all, although we all know it was in practice. I think technically the house simply took control of the agenda and passed it before BJ's prorogation began.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Oh good. Things were getting kind of slow, of late.

[FunkyDexter]

The thread's slowed but I'm not sure the situation has. If anything, it's accelerating.

Thing is, no matter how monumentally crazy what's happening today is, it always feels like tomorrow's going to be even more monumentally crazy. So we keep holding off actually posting because tomorrow's post would be so much more interesting.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Yep they have! Just a point - Parliament can't be recalled as it was now never legally suspended.

Are you sure? I'm watching the BBC's breaking news channel and they're saying this will only be specified in the full ruling which has yet to be passed down. The initial ruling merely specifies it as unlawful. Could be the situations moved on since I last hit refresh though.

2kaud is correct, and this is the worst possible judgement for Boris.

Firstly they ruled the the decision to prorogue was justiciable, and all 11 judges ruled that it was with no dissenters

Secondly the ruled that "The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification"

As 2kaud said this means that prorogation is void and of no effect and so Parliament can be resumed immediately

So the Speaker do we have one at the moment?

Yes we do Bercow will stand down officially at the end of October once a No Deal Brexit has been ruled out.

If BJ wants a new session of Parliament with a Queens Speech then he has to try to prorogue Parliament again

What this judgement means though is he will only be able to prorogue for the normal few day before a queens speech, any attempt to prorogue for longer would be very quickly struck down by the supreme court as it has already made a ruling on this matter.

As the 'NoDeal' bill was granted legal status as part of the now-never-happened prorogation process, is it now not legal??

My admittedly uninformed opinion is that it would be legal.

Yes the bill Parliament passed to force Boris to ask for an extension if he has not secured a deal before October 31st and so avoid no deal is legal, and if he tries to avoid doing it he would be in contempt of court and carrying out an illegal act which the court can make a judgement on.

In reality what this means that if Boris refuses to ask for an extension the court has a range of options in order to force the matter none of which would be good for Boris, and so may force him to resign rather than be found to be acting illegally or to be forced legally to do something he doesn't want to do.

[FunkyDexter]

the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification

Yep that's the quote I've read. But nowhere does it say Boris lied to the queen or discuss his motivations. It refers to the effect of the prorogation. That might seem like an academic difference but it's an important one because it allows Boris to spin it as "I never meant to do anything wrong, I was just following the rules".

The judgement as it's been released so far overturns his prorogation, sure, and is a huge political loss for him. But if, when the full judgement is handed down, it either says that Boris deliberately lied or that his motivation was to block parliament, it moves his actions into the realm of potentially criminal.

[2kaud]

AFAIK, the judgement says that his motivation to prorogue Parliament was to avoid scrutiny by Parliament (ie block Parliament) and not for the stated intent of having a Queen's Speech - ie it was unlawful (lying!).

realm of potentially criminal.

The rules for impeachment are already being dug out and dusted off!

Why he did this - ???????? He'd have been much better off if he'd just set a Queen's Speech for after the conference season. Now that Parliament will be sitting next week, what about the Tory Party Conference? Will this still be held? Will there be any Tories at Parliament or will they be all at the conference? The bigger publicity damage is not so much the ruling - but having their conference disrupted! The Speaker has already said that in the absence of stated business, he's going to allow lots of emergency debates, statements etc etc. What's the betting that when BJ is due to address the Tory conference he'll be dragged to Parliament to answer a question? The SC ruling effectively means that Parliament is supreme to the government. Normally this wouldn't matter as the government would have a majority so it gets its way. However, with a minority government, this matters greatly - the government can't over-rule or ignore what the majority in parliament want.

[FunkyDexter]

AFAIK, the judgement says that his motivation to prorogue Parliament was to avoid scrutiny by Parliament

It doesn't. It says the effect of the prorogation was to remove parliamentary scrutiny. It studiously avoids mentioning his motivations at all. Sorry that I'm being pedantic on this and I appreciate that it may come across as trying to defend Boris but I'm not. It's interesting for a couple of reasons (probably more):-

1. If intent to deceive on Boris's part can be established then things stand to gat far, FAR worse for him than the overturning of his prorogation. The ruling is carefully worded to avoid that but you can expect the opposition to get the knives out over the next few weeks.
2. If the ruling had established that intent it would have gone beyond establishing the relationship between government and parliament, it could have established the Supreme Court's supremacy over both. It would have been the first step to establishing that an unelected body could find a sitting prime minister to be potentially criminally liable. The ramifications of that are huge.

Why he did this - ????????

Oh we know why he did it, it was a political calculation that he got monumentally wrong. Probably the worst political miscalculation in... ooh, I don't know... 3 years?

As for the queens speech and the conference, who knows? Both of those really require a legitimate prorogation. The talking heads on the BBC last night were saying that Boris would still be able to do that. The judgement doesn't remove the right to prorogue but establishes that it must a satisfactory reason must be offered and it must be for a proportionate time period. queens speeches and party conferences would both clear that bar. But I struggle to see how he could do it politically after this debacle.

The rules for impeachment are already being dug out and dusted off!

… on both sides of the pond

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Yep that's the quote I've read. But nowhere does it say Boris lied to the queen or discuss his motivations.

It says the effect of the prorogation was to remove parliamentary scrutiny. It studiously avoids mentioning his motivations at all.

Yes and this was done purposely, they did not want to attempt to rule on his motivations as they would have been moving into the realm of opinion. This is not the courts job, and in this case specifically it ruled not on whether Boris lied (which many of us a pretty sure he did, but lets be honest what actual proof is there?) but on whether the action of prorogation in this case was legal.

The rules for impeachment are already being dug out and dusted off!

He is not going to be impeached, its just not going to happen and in this case probably shouldn't' happen.

As for the queens speech and the conference, who knows? Both of those really require a legitimate prorogation.

Queens speech yes, although it would now have to be for the normal 4 days or so, party conference no.

For the conservative party conference they will have to ask for a temporarily suspension of parliament for which they have to ask parliament and the noises coming out are that they wont get it.

The Tory conference will have to go ahead at the same time as commons business (which someone pointed out is what the SNP have to do currently and so is possible) and Boris will likely have to move his leaders speech to a weekend.

it was a political calculation that he got monumentally wrong

And now he is going to have to pay the price for that miscalculation, he wont get any good will form any of the other parties nor the former conservative ministers he withdrew the whip from.

[FunkyDexter]

on whether the action of prorogation in this case was legal.

Again, I'm being a pedant but it's important. They ruled it was unlawful, not illegal. An act carried out in good faith can be subsequently deemed unlawful. But for an act to be illegal, it's unlawfulness must have previously been established. And if it's illegal it's criminal and therefore punishable. That it was unlawful meant that it could be reversed (and has been) but it does not allow for any kind of criminal proceedings against Boris, Cummings et al.

He is not going to be impeached

Do we even have a concept of impeachment? I don't know why we'd need it. Unlike a US president our parliament can remove a sitting PM via a vote of no confidence and cranial proceeding could then be pursued.

[2kaud]

They ruled it was unlawful, not illegal.

Good point.

Do we even have a concept of impeachment?

Yes - impeachment is a method by which Parliament can try individuals for high treason or other misdemeanours. Impeachment was first used in 1376 and last used in 1806. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...United_Kingdom

[FunkyDexter]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...United_Kingdom

Thanks, that was a useful link. Am I understanding it right though? Because my reading of that says that it's a power that the House of Commons can use to try anyone, not just an MP, prime minister, lord etc. In other words it's kind of the exact opposite of impeachment as I hear it used in the US. It's not really about removing people from power, it's about retaining some direct judicial power in the hands of the House of Commons.

Am I miss-understanding it? And, assuming I'm not, would it be applicable in our situation?

[2kaud]

The House of Commons draws up the articles of impeachment. The House of Lords conducts the 'trial'. If found guilty, the House of Commons has to move for judgement - when the House of Lords will then impose its punishment within the law. For a PM, this punishment could include being removed from office. I don't think there is an appeal system?? If BJ doesn't resign (very unlikely IMO), it's possible that some MP(s) may try this route to get rid of BJ. I'm guessing that this will depend upon what happens in parliament over the next few days - as there's bound to be votes condemning the actions of BJ - which if he losses these could make impeachment more likely.

I thought impeachment was only for MPs and Lords - "with proof of an individual's crimes". I took that to mean an individual MP or Lord??????

I'm guessing that it could be applicable against BJ as he has been deemed to have acted unlawfully - hence could be impeached. Whether the House of Commons would get a majority to Impeach is questionable - as I guess that the 21 ex-Tories would vote against. Even if the Commons voted for, would the Lords have a majority in finding BJ guilty?

[FunkyDexter]

I thought impeachment was only for MPs and Lords - "with proof of an individual's crimes". I took that to mean an individual MP or Lord??????

Yeah, that's the bit I'm unclear on. If I take a literal reading of the Wikipedia page I think it applies to absolutely anyone, i.e. you or me (though probably not the queen). But that doesn't feel right and I think I am miss-understanding it. I suspect it only applies to (or is intended to apply to) our political figures.

I guess it makes more sense in the context of a MP or lord than it does in the context of a PM. The Commons has a mechanism for removing a PM (vote of no confidence) but doesn't have one for removing MPs and Lords. Also, reading further, I believe the power of impeachment is considerably older than the ability to call a vote of no confidence so it's mainly a hangover where the PM is concerned.

Still, it does exist and does provide an alternative route for removing Johnson should they choose to take it.

[2kaud]

A passing of Vote Of No Confidence effectively removes a government - not just the PM. If there is a passed vote of no confidence, then there is 14 days for another government to be formed otherwise there is a GE. That's why Labour won't at the moment call for a vote of no confidence. The only other way for a PM to be removed is via their own party rules for removing their leader.

[FunkyDexter]

A passing of Vote Of No Confidence effectively removes a government - not just the PM.

That's true. I guess because it's typically motivated to bring down a particular leader I'd started to subconsciously equate the two in my head but you're right, it's the Government, not the leader, that is brought down.

[2kaud]

As much as JC et al publicly say they want an election, IMO they don't. They hope that by giving BJ enough rope etc etc. JC becomes PM by default without an election. If a 'unity' government is formed with JC as PM, then no matter what they say they needn't hold an election until 2022. JC's trying to get the votes to win a 'No Confidence' motion and install him as PM. At the moment he hasn't got those votes so he won't. When he thinks he has, he will. The other parties (Lin/Dems etc) are saying no to him as PM at the moment. When they've been strong-armed enough they may shift to support JC as PM of a coalition. Then JC will call a vote a no confidence. We'll have a far-left government propped up by the SNP et al in place for over 2 years as once in they won't voluntarily leave.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

As much as JC et al publicly say they want an election, IMO they don't.

We'll have a far-left government propped up by the SNP et al in place for over 2 years as once in they won't voluntarily leave.

I am fairly confident that wont happen, firstly when JC says he wants an election he definitely does, he loves an election does Jeremy if he could campaign all the time he would its is really what he is best at and seems to enjoy the most. I would go as far to say the only time he has come across well in recent years has been during a general election campaign.

Of course he wants to lead any temporary government if it came about as it would give him added legitimacy with the electorate but also Labour however misguided thinks it can win an election outright if one was held now.

The other parties you can be sure will get written assurances as to the exact scope of any interim government. Also any Unity government could only be formed with Lib Dem, SNP & independent MP (former conservative) votes and if JC did try and carry on it would be very easy for them to call for a vote of no confidence in the interim government and win.

The only thing holding back a GE right now is the fact that nobody trusts Boris not to find a way to crash us out with No Deal in the mean time if they dont force the issue first.

[FunkyDexter]

I'm sorta 50/50 on this.

The only thing holding back a GE right now is the fact that nobody trusts Boris not to find a way to crash us out with No Deal in the mean time if they dont force the issue first.

I 100% believed this right up until they got the legislation through to force him to ask for an extension and then didn't call for an election. At this point the only thing Boris can do to force a crash out is to literally break the law and if he's willing to do that (spoiler: he isn't) there's really nothing a government can do to prevent it. If Boris chains himself to the railing outside number 10 on the 31st, what are they going to do? The politics of forcing an extension is already done and won.

The theory that they just don't think they can win and don't want to risk a Tory/Brexit party coalition forcing through a no deal carries more water, in my opinion, but still doesn't cut it for me. I think NSA is right about Corbyn's personality and love of campaigning. And yes, momentum do think they'd win an election. They're delusional but if you spend any time talking to one of their true believers you quickly realise that, yes, they are indeed delusional.

For me the reason they're holding off is actually far more cruel. They've got Boris over a barrel and his only choice is to resign as the shortest serving prime minister in British history or go cap in hand to the EU. If you're Corbyn or Swanson, which of the following would taste sweeter:-
1. You get to go to the EU and ask for an extension
2. You get to send Boris to the EU to ask for an extension.

It's number 2.

And the great part of the plan is that you're still going to get your election within a year anyway. It's all gravy, baby.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'd say that about sums it up. Who would want to be saddled with this mess when you can leave the saddle on your opponent...then replace them?

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I 100% believed this right up until they got the legislation through to force him to ask for an extension and then didn't call for an election. At this point the only thing Boris can do to force a crash out is to literally break the law and if he's willing to do that (spoiler: he isn't) there's really nothing a government can do to prevent it. If Boris chains himself to the railing outside number 10 on the 31st, what are they going to do? The politics of forcing an extension is already done and won.

I dont believe that it is done and won and either do opposition MP's, in normal times with a normal PM then yes, if Theresa May was still PM then whatever else you may have to say about her you could be pretty sure she would comply with the law and be straight forward about it.

Boris is not helping himself here, the way he is acting causes great distrust and with good reason, opposition MP's dont trust his motives and certainly dont want to give him anything he wants right now with the belief that he is still looking for ways to avoid the Benn act (asking for an extension).

He has publically stated in interviews numerous times that he will both comply with the Benn act and leave the EU on the 31st October, without cross party support for a deal that is impossible and he has spent recent times destroying any goodwill he may have had with opposition MP's and Independent former Conservative MP's to the point where it is unlikely any deal he brought back (which currently could only be basically Mays Deal or a so close to as makes no difference) wouldn't be supported.

So we have a PM who is either lying to everyone in his interviews or he still has the expectation that he can somehow avoid doing what the law is telling him to do.

So yes there is politics in this, the opposition parties dont want to give him what he wants when he wants it, but also they dont trust him not to try further bending of the rules in order to leave with No Deal.